Logo

Mounting Evidence

October 10, 2014

On three occasions over the last three months alone, I’ve posted opinions and statistics about the downsides of sports specialization, often citing the work and words of others because, frankly, I’m expected to oppose sports specialization – it’s in my DNA and job description – and anyway, the experts always come from some other place.
  • On July 15 (“Misspent Money”), the Chicago Tribune’s William Hageman was the reporter and Utah State University provided the research. The message was that sports specialization is a serious waste of family resources.

  • On July 18 (“Specialization Risks”), the renowned David Epstein was the writer and Loyola University of Chicago provided the work. The message was that serious health risks make specialization counterproductive to successful sports careers.

  • On Sept. 5 (“More Than a Myth”), I reported that the Lansing State Journal picked a three-sport male and four-sport female as its 2013-14 high school athletes of the year – practical proof that the reports of the death of the multi-sport athlete are greatly exaggerated.

Last month, Athletic Business recalled its August 2013 interview with the often quoted Dr. James Andrews, the orthopedic surgeon and injury consultant and author of “Any Given Monday: Sports Injuries and How to Prevent Them for Athletes, Parents and Coaches – Based on My Life in Sports Medicine.” In this interview, Dr. Andrews reiterated his earlier statements (some quoted in earlier postings here) that there is a “dramatic increase in overuse injuries ... due in large part to kids participating in one sport all year ...”

Athletic Business editor-in-chief Dennis Van Milligen added in his September 2014 editorial:

“Parents are ‘investing’ outrageous amounts of money into their children’s athletic development, because the fear is that they will not reach the level they need to without specialization, a notion constantly disproved.”

For multiple reasons, the multiple-sport experience is best. We must strive continually to make that experience possible for most of our student-athletes.

In Others’ Words

August 22, 2014

I’ve read and heard multiple times – so I’ve come to believe it’s at least partly true – that one of the techniques that marketing departments or agencies use when developing campaigns to promote a product or service is to look at it from the consumer’s, customer’s or client’s perspective.
The point is often brought home that if management would use this technique as much as marketers, then management would be more effective and would label itself, rather than marketers, as the “creative team.” It chafes me to hear a CEO say he or she wants to know what “creative” has to say about a sponsorship initiative before the CEO will offer an opinion.
Thinking about what our customers want doesn’t require that leaders suspend their personal beliefs or reverse experience-based opinions. It merely asks that we look at things from a different and sometimes even opposite point of view. And to be truly revealing, it asks that we try to put into words where other people stand on a particular topic.
It asks us to actually try to describe what our customers see from where they stand and what they say they want. For example, in our work, it would ask administrators to think about and actually describe what coaches want, and vice versa. And it asks both coaches and administrators to think about and put into their own words what student-athletes want, and what their parents want.

This has been an ongoing part of my life, provoked I suppose by my marriage of 42 years to a woman whose political views often point 180 degrees from my own. And this approach has been especially enlightening on school sports’ most troublesome topics, some of which we are tackling at this time, like ...

  • Out-of-season coaching rules
  • Junior high/middle school programming
  • Health and safety mandates